U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas
WASHINGTON  The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say, provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.

WND first reported on what has become widely known as "The Pedophile Protection Act" last week, raising nationwide alarm that has already generated more than 300,000 individual letters of protest to members of the U.S. Senate.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

On Friday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.

"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.

Already well over 3,000 people have utilized the procedures and more than 300,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.

"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."

(Story continues below)

WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation  a plan that failed under President Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.

An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."

Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.

"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.

He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States  especially actions that cross state lines  that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.

"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."

He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."

Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule "

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.

"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.

Akers' analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of "virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists." Critics also have expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime.

"Under [the plan] the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive," Akers said.

He said there's already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups ... to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association."

During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."

But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."

Republicans in the House also attempted to amend the bill to offer hate crimes protection for U.S. military veterans who were attacked because of their service. Democrats unanimously rejected the amendment.

"I believe this action, organized by Janet Porter, has generated more personal letters to members of Congress faster than any other effort of its kind," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, which has facilitated the delivery through Fed Ex. "I don't think the U.S. Senate has ever received 250,000 individually addressed and individually signed letters in 72 hours before. It will be most interesting to watch the impact."

TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders

TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders

Youre right, haveing one party controlling all 3 of the big institutions in the legislative branch is a great happening.

TT, I think you might be going a bit too far. There are people on both sides who offer support, and in addition, when the right was in control some bad sh!t was passed too. In the end, we are screwed b/c all we can vote for are corrupt politicians, not leaders

This is exactly it, and a reason why I don't understand your political affiliation. Both sides (of our elected officials) are corrupt and the only way we can reduce corruption is to toss out congress, and reduce government. We need to get these people out, and we need to get rid of so much government intervention in our lives.

Washington is corrupt, yet their current goal is to nationalize everything; just look at how the current administration is trying to run California. Be a part of a movement that works to shrink government, not expand it!

This is exactly it, and a reason why I don't understand your political affiliation. Both sides (of our elected officials) are corrupt and the only way we can reduce corruption is to toss out congress, and reduce government. We need to get these people out, and we need to get rid of so much government intervention in our lives.

Washington is corrupt, yet their current goal is to nationalize everything; just look at how the current administration is trying to run California. Be a part of a movement that works to shrink government, not expand it!

I actually voted against incumbant dems in congress for that very reason. I dont like 1 party control at all, regardless of who is in charge.

intestingly enough, pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. my mom did a stint at a prison specifically for sex offenders, and there's no way they can ever loose the "fetish".

wish we'd just castrate them before their release date.

what we've got right now, is a rule that pedophiles can't live within 1000 meters of a school zone or park. that's why some cities have small parks (quarter of a block size) in weird locations - that way they can't live within city limits. napa is a perfect example of that.

intestingly enough, pedophiles can't be rehabilitated. my mom did a stint at a prison specifically for sex offenders, and there's no way they can ever loose the "fetish".

wish we'd just castrate them before their release date.

what we've got right now, is a rule that pedophiles can't live within 1000 meters of a school zone or park. that's why some cities have small parks (quarter of a block size) in weird locations - that way they can't live within city limits. napa is a perfect example of that.

I was very fortunate a few years back to meet and speak with Meghan Kanka's mother (who, has a strength that I cannot fully understand). For those that do not remember, Meghan Kanka was the girl that Meghan's law came from. Talking to her, and hearing her story put a lot of things into perspective. Now granted, she is not 100% thrilled with Meghan's law, and neither am I, however the moment an adult crosses the line, imo they waive all rights and any veil of protection.

Since when is being a child-molester a "gender identity"? Pathology and complusion does not equal gender! If it does, serial killers and arsonists will be next on the protected species list.

Children are unlike any other victim. They are trusting, defenseless and cannot make rational decisions to keep from harm's way. There is no excuse for this. Passing such a law is just a vehicle for keeping the residents of a community QUIET for fear of being sued, when one of these crimininals is released into their neighborhood.

Anonymity is what Pedophiles want and need above all, to follow their compulsion. This law is like telling us and our children that the person most likely to harm them is more important than their right to freedom and happiness. Damned shame.

Since when is being a child-molester a "gender identity"? Pathology and complusion does not equal gender! If it does, serial killers and arsonists will be next on the protected species list.

Children are unlike any other victim. They are trusting, defenseless and cannot make rational decisions to keep from harm's way. There is no excuse for this. Passing such a law is just a vehicle for keeping the residents of a community QUIET for fear of being sued, when one of these crimininals is released into their neighborhood.

Anonymity is what Pedophiles want and need above all, to follow their compulsion. This law is like telling us and our children that the person most likely to harm them is more important than their right to freedom and happiness. Damned shame.

I have heard lawyers say it over and over, that the justice system is designed to protect the defendant/criminal more than the victim. It's a complicated issue that has many factors I'm sure, and I don't understand it enough to have an explanation.

I heard a PhD psychologist on the radio the other day, who said the majority of sexual pathology (about 30 categories) would be umbrella covered by such legislation. These categories of pathological sexual behavior include homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, incest, etc. It was his professional opinion that most of this seems rooted in very aggressive gay rights lobbies and a push for institutionalizing the homosexual agenda. These laws will rewrite the definition of what is and is not "pathological".

I have heard lawyers say it over and over, that the justice system is designed to protect the defendant/criminal more than the victim. It's a complicated issue that has many factors I'm sure, and I don't understand it enough to have an explanation.
....
Am I missing something here?

well, the justice system is structured so that 100 guilty men would go free before a single innocent man is punished by the government in theory. So in a vague sort of way, this is about giving benefit of the doubt that the person in question is now "reformed" and shouldn't be treated as if they were an active criminal. I don't agree with it, but I think thats the "reasoning" if you can call it that.

As far as the parts I didn't quote go, I think that is part of the issue many people have with gay marriage - is homosexuality pathological or is it by choice (or is it sometimes one or the other). Nobody has issues with giving some certain levels of specialized protections to groups that are that way without their own choice - race being an easy one, but many disabilities as well. And religion although able to be looked at as a choice was one of the many major reasons for immigration to the "new world". But very few people believe that you should be able to be protected against people not liking what you choose to do ie would anyone here think that its a surprise that nobody would want hire someone who shaves their head and has a swastika and pentagram tattooed on it, and that the person deserves "equal opportunity employment"? And since i'm mentioning it at all, i'll clarify my position on gay marriage I have no problems with any 2 (or more) people entering any sort of contractual agreement that provides for and allows for joint ownership, survivor benefits, shared health insurance, etc. However, I reserve the right for the use of the word "marriage" for a man and a woman, as i'm irritated that rainbows were already taken away from the non-homosexuals, and i'm not letting them take another word I voted AGAINST (so I was in a pretty small mniority) Florida's constitutional amendment on marriage as it specifically denied any contractual agreements that were significantly similar to marriage which i feel is ridiculous, had it been worded differently I would have voted yes. I don't care or even WANT to know what 2 adults do within the privacy of their bedroom, but as with many other "progressive" ideas it would primarily contribute to dilution of the meaning of the word marriage, which I am against.

I see your reading comprehension did not "kick in" for this response. If you would have looked at the previous post that I was referencing, I was agreeing with another poster about how I felt that one party control was a negative. I DID NOT state one way or the other how when the right was in charge it was bad, nor how it is bad now that the left is in charge, just that I felt both were a negative.

I see your reading comprehension did not "kick in" for this response. If you would have looked at the previous post that I was referencing, I was agreeing with another poster about how I felt that one party control was a negative. I DID NOT state one way or the other how when the right was in charge it was bad, nor how it is bad now that the left is in charge.

Sorry if you were confused

I was referencing about 30 other posts you have made recently... bush this, bush that, did you have the disdain when bush was in office.